Obama Bombs Pakistan

Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because we were there. They weren't there before we invaded.

 

They weren't there because Saddam Hussein was..........period!

Cheers,

Jim

 

My understanding the bombing was done under conditions Bush had put in place. Obama has yet to dictate criteria for when to bomb over the boarder or not. He did say in the campaign that he will bomb over the boarder if Pakistan doesn't police it's land and allows the terrorist to attach our soldiers then cross back over the boarder to safety.

I agree with your post 100%, I hope we learn from previous mistakes but what we need right now is a clear objective so we know what we're trying to achieve.

 

Yep he made them play nice in his country. He was the only one doing the mass killings. He was in charge...... :laugh:

 

That is the only rule those countries know....Why do you think England pulled out after 50 odd years of trying to change them?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I wish we'd of learned from England...

 

Turns out it was the CIA who shot the missiles in the Pakistan. They are allowed to do so without white house approval. I hope Obama changes that policy.

 

That may not be entirely true, but it is also irrelevant. The fact is that they are there now. And we live now.

The upside is that fewer people are dying with Al Qaeda in Iraq than there were with Saddam in Iraq.

 

It is very relevant if we caused them to be there... We can't bring people to your country then brag that we saved you from them no more than we can bomb your house and kick in your door in the middle of the night then brag that we brought you clean water and a modern sewer system. The ends don't justify the means.

True it might be fewer deaths but we could sure use those troops in the real war over in Afghanistan instead of the one we started in Iraq.

 

Not for the point of this thread. Ken said we should go after Al Qaeda wherever they are. He said nothing about what caused them to be there. I think the reason they are in a particular place is irrelevant to the danger that they pose. If they pose a danger, it should not matter why they are there. We should get rid of them.

No one is saying that they do. We are having a different conversation here, namely, what about now?

Those who died in Iraq will be sorry to hear that it wasn't a "real war." Such insensitivity is perhaps unintentional, but unfortunate nonetheless.

It is also disappointing to here that you don't value human life in Iraq. I find that somewhat strange. I think the people who died in Iraq under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein needed someone to speak up for them and insist on justice.

It is interesting to me that those who are accusing Bush of war crimes and wanting him brought to trial (an unthinkably absurd proposition), seem not to care that Hussein was actually guilty of crimes against humanity. These folks want to take revenge on someone who was fixing a problem rather than on the one causing it.

It is a sign of the lack of value for human life.

 

1. Those who died in Iraq should know they didn't have to die on that battle field. Iraq didn't fly any planes into buildings on 9/11 which was the premise of the war on terror. There deaths on that battle field was the irresponsible actions of the commander and chief and they have a right to know.

2. We can't be the world police at the cost of our young men and women. There is death and atrocities taking place all over the 3rd world and China. More people died during the Rwandan Genocide than Saddam put to death. The way we show concern and handle situations like that is through diplomacy and not our military might. If we needed t invade, it should have been with the UN blessings and support. That's what they are there for.

 

Then Obama has the responsiblity of every soldier who dies in Iraq starting from the moment he accepted office.

Why is he going to take a year or two or three to withdraw if it is an unjust war?

BTW - I was listening to NPR on Friday late morning and an Obama supporter was saying that he thought that Obama would merely "remission" combat troops in Iraq from "combat troops" to "advisors" without bring anyone home.

He said that those soldiers would be doing the same things - patrolling, looking for insurgents - fighting... but they would no longer be "combat troops" - they would be "advisors".

He said that in that way Obama could keep his campaign promise to pull out combat troops without risking making things worse in Iraq.

 

No, the premise of Iraq was WMDs, not the 9/11.

If you remember, we tried diplomacy for 12 years.

It was.

 

That was one very small part of the premise for Iraq. Let's not rewrite history.

 

When Saddam was eliminated, it created a vacuum, or more likely a vehicle which enabling Al Qaeda to come into power in Iraq.... I don't know how many came out of the wood work, but we killed a ton of them.... Thank GWB for that intelligent strategy...

 

Islamabad is believed to have a tacit agreement with Washington to allow the missile strikes, which U.S. claim have killed a number of insurgent leaders behind attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.

Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and other insurgent leaders.

Pakistan helped the United States round up hundreds of militants in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including several al-Qaida leaders still incarcerated at Guantanamo.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=w012406A.xml

 

O-bomb-a, huh?

 

When Saddam was eliminated, it created a vacuum, or more likely a vehicle which enabling Al Qaeda to become more open in Iraq.... I don't know how many came out of the wood work, but we killed a ton of them.... Thank GWB for that intelligent strategy...

 

Wrong... Obama is not the one who sent the troops into Iraq and America as a whole was lied to by the past administration. That will forever known as Bush' war.

Because we overthrew a government and can't leave until stability is built in the country. The point is we never should have gone in without a plan to get out.

At this point it's just rumors and we shouldn't condemn a man on rumors or because we THINK this is what he'll do.

 

No, he also said Iraq was a terrorist safe zone but it turned out they came to fight us.

If you call that diplomacy... Bush wouldn't acknowledge them in talks except to make threats and demands. The only true argument against Diplomacy not working is when Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in. Other then that he cooperated.